[quote=mudshark ] If Unis are still getting the numbers of students they want then they're charging the right amount, if not then they'd better cut their prices and let demand'n'supply sort things out.
That would only be true of there was a market with different prices.
Because going to school is mandatory and benefits everyone, where as going to university is not.
so some education benefits everyone but more education doesnt?
Also can you tell me the places that make our degrees look cheap?
What are the problems with reducing numbers?
so some education benefits everyone but more education doesnt?
Nice twist of words, if you don't go to university then it doesn't benefit you does it. If you choose to follow another path (the majority) then why should you fund the minority?
What? All of it?Not affordable
I know. However, it still should, on principle.
Wasn't it Major's govt that said 50% of people should go to university? I think this was the start of the problem. I don't think university is appropriate for that many people, but some form of higher education probably is.
I reckon a more intelligent approach to educating and training the population would have been a good idea, rather than pulling a number out of their arses then not bothering to think about the implications.
[quote=anagallis_arvensis ] Because going to school is mandatory and benefits everyone, where as going to university is not.
so some education benefits everyone but more education doesnt?
does going to uni make better plumbers? travel agents, middle managers in call centres?
The right amount of education is great.
if you don't go to university then it doesn't benefit you does it. If you choose to follow another path (the majority) then why should you fund the minority
Because you still need many (although certainly not all) of the people who do go to university and you will benefit from their education?
Suppose its hard to draw the line between degrees which benefit and should be paid for, versus those which only benefit the individual.
That would only be true of there was a market with different prices.
No - many don't go at all, if some of those are put off by prices then more of them will go if prices drop.
Wasn't it Major's govt that said 50% of people should go to university?
Blair
Nice twist of words, if you don't go to university then it doesn't benefit you does it.
Interesting point of view.
If you choose to follow another path (the majority) then why should you fund the minority?
Because it improves the country as a whole kind of like the welfare state.
does going to uni make better plumbers? travel agents, middle managers in call centres?
The right amount of education is great.
I agree, but charging shitloads for it does not seem the best way of achieving this aim.
What? All of it?
Yes all of it. anyon would think that the UK didn't receive any benfit from these graduates!
Not affordable as too many go now,
Then reduce the numbers.
Can't really reduce the numbers, without causing major problems,
Well over the last few years the government has reduced numbers in lot of other areas so I can't see why numbers can't be reduced here too.
As far as I'm concerned the taxpayers in the early '90s gave me money to go to unversity. I graduated and got a job and I now pay a not inconsiderable amount of tax, certainly a lot more than it cost to send me to uni in the first place. In addition to the personal tax there is also the wealth that my job helps to generate. In other words the taxpayer got a blinder of deal by paying for my education. In all the debates over the cost of sending people to university and the benefits that they as individuals receive, never is it mentioned anywhere the benefits that the country/taxpayer gets from a graduate.
Because it improves the country as a whole kind of like the welfare state
Maybe, maybe not, and the line that is crossed is that if the taxpayer was funding the training of Nurses, Doctors, Engineers..... then that in my mind would probably be acceptable and an obvious benefit to society as a whole. When you are funding 1000's of students to study geography, media studies and sports psychology, its probably not.
Well over the last few years the government has reduced numbers in lot of other areas so I can't see why numbers can't be reduced here too.
What approach would you take? What we had in the 80s seemed fine to me but I'm probably wrong.
"If you want to change the world, be an Engineer." Cock on mate.
Give me an apprentice trained engineer any time over a Uni only educated engineer. If you want anything done that is (in our industry).
Since the all the guff about paying to go to uni our apprentice applicants have risen to a very encouraging standard.
So, is there an argument for a quota system of grants? So, all engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, etc get a free ride; then other degrees get a limited number of free grants depending on the value to society of the degree?
NB this is a hypothetical question and not an indication of my personal views.
LHS why do you think free schooling is good then?
LHS why do you think free schooling is good then?
Everyone needs a minimum standard of education. Not everyone needs to be educated to be an expert in sports psychology.
I'd have it as view if you tweaked who was paid for and who was not.
So, is there an argument for a quota system of grants? So, all engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, etc get a free ride; then other degrees get a limited number of free grants depending on the value to society of the degree?NB this is a hypothetical question and not an indication of my personal views.
Although that sort of categorisation seems logical, it is fraught with difficulty.
It assumes that every engineer graduating from university will benefit society in some way. most do not i would have thought. What of those engineers who enter into private enterprise and profit from the public, surely that's a case of paying for the same thing twice?
Doctors are much the same. If the state funds a doctor through university, then that doctor takes up employment in a private hospital, surely that is as much use to joe public for curing their ailments as a history of art graduate?
Perhaps there could be some sort of claw back of fees for those graduates who enter some form of employment which benefits the state? e.g. Doctors who work for the NHS get x% back of tuition fees for every year spent working, engineers who do government funded projects at agreed rates recover a percentage of their fees. As do lawyers working for the GLS.
Or even an RAF type scheme, which ties them into public sector jobs for a set number of years on the basis that their fees were paid for by the state? Although, thinking about it, that might end up with all the poor kids working in the public sector and all the rich ones cruising unchallenged into the top private sector jobs!
Seems a bit odd mind you, especially as they will be taking a salary/payment from the state anyway, but would tick the box of we're-only-paying-for-your-education-if-it-benefits-us
Perhaps there could be some sort of claw back of fees for those graduates who enter some form of employment which benefits the state? e.g. Doctors who work for the NHS get x% back of tuition fees for every year spent working, engineers who do government funded projects at agreed rates recover a percentage of their fees
That's really dodgy ground there. Shall we also expect those who have been in receipt of benefits to pay back that too?
That's really dodgy ground there. Shall we also expect those who have been in receipt of benefits to pay back that too?
Not really the same though is it?
It's just like a loan which you do can pay back via employment rather than cash (the same as the RAF sponsorship scheme). If you choose not to undertake public work, the loan crystallises and becomes a debt which you repay like any other student loan.
So if you take a government grant and go to university, but then decide upon graduating that you'd rather go and work for BUPA than the NHS, your grant is repayable like a student loan.
I'm just mulling over ideas btw, no personal view really. My llb was paid for by the scottish government and i paid full fees in england, so been on both sides of the fence.
Are you making the assumption that no 18 year old knows what he/she wants to do in life or is able to focus/motivate themselves because you didn't?
Pretty much, but my advice is clearly best and I've ALWAYS done things right (this is an internet forum right :wink:).
I do believe in people having worked in crappy jobs though as it gives them a better appreciation of them and they will hopefully treat others still doing them better as a result of it.
Personally it also meant I was treated as a mature student and didn't have to pay the fees they introduced that year!
Not really the same though is it?
It's exactly the same. Taxpayer gives money which is spent either on an education or on benefits. Equally you could use healthcare as another example. Those who receive healthcare via the NHS are expected to pay it back, afterall they've had the benefit of that cash being spent, no one else has.
You also have the difficulty of defining what does and doesn't constitute public works. I work in the oil and gas industry and the interesting thing is that the oil in the North Sea belongs to the UK, not the oil companies (they operate under license) would that constitute "public works"?
It's exactly the same. Taxpayer gives money which is spent either on an education or on benefits. Equally you could use healthcare as another example. Those who receive healthcare via the NHS are expected to pay it back, afterall they've had the benefit of that cash being spent, no one else has.
No, honestly, it's not.
Are you suggesting Student Loans are the same as benefits or healthcare and that we're on dodgy territory for asking for the taxpayer funded loans back from students?
Are you suggesting Student Loans are the same as benefits or healthcare and that we're on dodgy territory for asking for the taxpayer funded loans back from students?
I'm saying that a taxpayer funded higher education system is no different to taxpayer funded healthcare system or a taxpayer funded benefits system. Money comes from the taxpayer and pays for something for the individual. If you expect one group to have to refund that money then it isn't unreasonable to expect any other the others to do the same.
I should add that my position is that Higher education should be taxpayer funded with no repayments. What I do not think is that it should be universal, rather it should only be open to those who have earned it.
Surely the difference is that healthcare is necessary, a degree is not?
A degree is necessary if you want to be a doctor and your healthcare system won't be much cop without them.
So you've completely missed my point then?
A doctor working in a private healthcare is no use to the NHS using taxpayer, who funded his degree.
A doctor working in the NHS is useful, therefore his fees should be paid.
No I haven't missed your point at all. I understand it perfectly and I have some sympathy for it, however you do appear to be missing the point that I'm making which is if you expect state funding from one system to be repaid (by whatever means you choose), then it stands to reason that state funding in other systems should also be repaid.
That doc will be paying a nice chunk of tax and spending lots of lovely cash on shiny things to keep retailers and VAT man happy.
No I haven't missed your point at all. I understand it perfectly and I have some sympathy for it, however you do appear to be missing the point that I'm making which is if you expect state funding from one system to be repaid (by whatever means you choose), then it stands to reason that state funding in other systems should also be repaid.
But don't we as a society treat higher education as a choice? It's for self improvement, not a primary need.
Whereas income related benefits and healthcare are primary needs, so don't fall into the same category? The money/care received is to fulfil some basic needs, not wants.
If what you're suggesting is that higher education should be a state funded right (which I think you are), then i'd agree with you, but in reality it just wouldn't be feasible (on the basis that the gates would have to be opened too wide), so my proposal was simply an attempt at drawing the line somewhere that seemed vaguely logical.
but graduates end up paying more tax than non graduates, due to their higher salaries(even acounting for those naer-do-wel arts students ;-)......
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/do-graduates-earn-100000-more-than-non-graduates
If what you're suggesting is that higher education should be a state funded right (which I think you are),
Largely yes, but not a universal right. You get it if you earn it, like the system that was in place in the early '90s.
The government will still be paying a substantial portion of university costs much of the debt will be written off.
I should add that my position is that Higher education should be taxpayer funded with no repayments. What I do not think is that it should be universal, rather it should only be open to those who have earned it.
Have to say I agree, but only for subjects that bring a direct benefit back to society as a whole eg Medicine, Dentistry, Engineering, Architecture, Teaching etc
All the media studies nonsense can fund itself if they can find anyone daft enough to pay for it.....
[i]No. Try reading it again. I'm saying only those on a huge salary will have paid it off; those on £21k will not have paid it off. [/i]
I have, you were ambiguous - but I guess that your idea of a huge salary is somewhere between £21k and what I'd call a huge salary.
According to a quick search over 40% of the loans will never be paid off - sounds a bit pointless going to Uni if you'll barely earn more than minimum wage.
And the more I think about it, I was earning that back in the late 80's as a pretty lowly Programmer...
If they put me in charge I'd reduce the university places by about 70%, no fees, grants for students from low income families, and direct the less academic 70% into vocational courses and apprenticeships. The current situation is terrible for social mobility or ensuring the brightest students are on the right courses and brilliant for producing tons of mediocre graduates with no relevant training to join the workforce, who then end up on the dole or in a call centre if they're lucky.
According to a quick search over 40% of the loans will never be paid off - sounds a bit pointless going to Uni if you'll barely earn more than minimum wage.
Are you not familiar with the basic concept of capitalism. You are sold a dream, marketed to you you as 'aspiration' which you must joyously display at all times, parroting it like a mantra. In return for this you will be delivered, post graduation into a consumer utopia of nice houses, expensive cars and frequent foreign holidays, as if they were your birthright.
They don't shout the statistics proving that, for the vast majority, this has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. But you can't mention that. Because then the whole elaborate media driven sham falls apart. SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
littlemisspanda - you question current average grad starting salaries, well finance and IT must bring the average up a bit. You've been working for a while? Average would have been less back then and it seems where you work pays less than average anyway. Your degree seems to have been less demanding than many so possibly all fair
I've been working 9 years now. One of those years I spent doing a postgrad because I couldn't get anywhere with my first degree, because it was largely irrelevant to employers. And I do, incidentally, work in IT these days. I have worked for 3 IT companies and not one of them paid £25k to a new graduate outside of London.
You do get a lot of graduate jobs quoting "£40k OTE" which are usually for sales roles where the base salary is low, but there are commissions/bonuses to be had if you happen to be good at sales/recruitment etc. I suspect these inflate the market, as these are advertised quite a lot on job boards in the Graduate/Entry Level sections.
Are you not familiar with the basic concept of capitalism. You are sold a dream, marketed to you you as 'aspiration' which you must joyously display at all times, parroting it like a mantra. In return for this you will be delivered, post graduation into a consumer utopia of nice houses, expensive cars and frequent foreign holidays, as if they were your birthright.They don't shout the statistics proving that that this has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. But you can't mention that. Because then the whole elaborate media driven sham falls apart. SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I think I love binners.
Just had a look and see IBM say they pay £30k which is pretty impressive. Logica seem to pay up to £26k, would have thought they were average sort of payers. What are your skills?
IBM have an intensive selection procedure, I'd have thought they were paying top whack to be honest.
Two points.
re: all institutions charging full whack - £9K. Universities are pretty much a form of positional goods - they have reputations, in that some are better than others. If a university doesn't charge full price, they're basically admitting that they are not top flight, and none of them (even the rubbish ones) are prepared to do it. That the govt. didn't realise this does not reflect well on the policy.
re: universities making loads of money - you do all realise that the introduction of tuition fees made virtually no difference to net income, don't you? For each £3K a year they charge, central govt. funding was cut by £3K. Student expectations are through the roof (for good reason), but universities have no (extra) money to improve the service they provide. That is why top flight universities want to charge more to give a genuinely excellent student experience; it's not like the staff get paid more if they charge more.
I think it's crucial that universities all charge the same. Otherwise you'll get good people who should be at good universities going to worse ones to save money, like you do in the US. This means richer people get better education, wich is dead wrong.
I think you've inadvertently stumbled across official government policy there Molls. Why not model the university system on the school system that directly preceded it, and make wealth-based educational apartheid in this country complete?
They're almost there already. The £9k cap won't last until the next election. Not a chance. Then it'll be an official free-for-all free market, where the rich get to buy and insure their children's futures at the expense of everyone else
That'll make me far more sad than the introduction of fees 🙁
